Science Task Screener

Task Title: Big Bang Evidence Explorer Task

Grade: High School

Date: 2023-10-27

Instructions

Criterion A. Tasks are driven by high-quality scenarios that are grounded in phenomena or problems.

i. Making sense of a phenomenon or addressing a problem is necessary to accomplish the task.

What was in the task, where was it, and why is this evidence?

  1. Is a phenomenon and/or problem present?

Yes, the task requires students to investigate the physical properties and dynamics of our universe (expansion, temperature, elemental composition) as observable phenomena that require an overarching explanatory framework.

  1. Is information from the scenario necessary to respond successfully to the task?

Yes, students must actively use the interactive simulation, running experiments, selecting galaxies to view spectral lines and velocities, analyzing primordial gas clouds, and manipulating the passage of time to trace the CMB peak wavelength in order to answer the synthesis questions properly.

ii. The task scenario is engaging, relevant, and accessible to a wide range of students.

Features of engaging, relevant, and accessible tasks:

Features of scenarios Yes Somewhat No Rationale
Scenario presents real-world observations [x] [ ] [ ] Based on real astronomical evidence like Hubble’s Law.
Scenarios are based around at least one specific instance, not a topic or generally observed occurrence [ ] [x] [ ] It is broadly about the universe rather than a specific isolated event, though specific galaxy spectra act as instances.
Scenarios are presented as puzzling/intriguing [x] [ ] [ ] Uncovering the origin of the universe is a profoundly intriguing endeavor.
Scenarios create a “need to know” [x] [ ] [ ] Drives the student to figure out what the three distinct pieces of evidence mean collectively.
Scenarios are explainable using grade-appropriate SEPs, CCCs, DCIs [x] [ ] [ ] High school level concepts align perfectly with the target standards.
Scenarios effectively use at least 2 modalities (e.g., images, diagrams, video, simulations, textual descriptions) [x] [ ] [ ] Uses textual guidance and a multifaceted interactive HTML5 simulation containing interactive graphs, dynamic particle clouds, and changing spectral lines.
If data are used, scenarios present real/well-crafted data [x] [ ] [ ] Simulates accurate ratios (75% H, 25% He) and realistic mathematical relationships for Hubble’s constant and blackbody radiation.
The local, global, or universal relevance of the scenario is made clear to students [x] [ ] [ ] Literally universal relevance.
Scenarios are comprehensible to a wide range of students at grade-level [x] [ ] [ ] High school students can engage with the sliders, buttons, and visualizations.
Scenarios use as many words as needed, no more [x] [ ] [ ] Task text is concise, using clear bullet points and bolding for instructions.
Scenarios are sufficiently rich to drive the task [x] [ ] [ ] The simulation contains three separate, rich interactive models that provide a wealth of data for the final explanation.
Evidence of quality for Criterion A: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion A:

None. The simulation and the task’s reliance on its diverse output make for a robust phenomenological investigation.

Criterion B. Tasks require sense-making using the three dimensions.

i. Completing the task requires students to use reasoning to sense-make about phenomena or problems.

Consider in what ways the task requires students to use reasoning to engage in sense-making and/or problem solving.

The task goes beyond asking “what did the simulation say?” and repeatedly uses “synthesize” questions to ask students how the data points they just collected support the premise of an expanding, early hot/dense universe. Part 4 requires students to reason across all three separate modules to construct a cohesive argument.

ii. The task requires students to demonstrate grade-appropriate dimensions:

Evidence of SEPs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)

Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions: Students are explicitly instructed to construct a comprehensive explanation of the Big Bang Theory in Part 4, combining their analysis from the three earlier data-gathering parts. They must demonstrate how multiple independent pieces of evidence support a scientific theory.

Evidence of CCCs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)

Energy and Matter: In Part 3, students must utilize their understanding of energy and matter to explain why the background temperature drops as the spatial volume of the universe expands, connecting the expansion to the stretching of radiation wavelengths.

Evidence of DCIs (which element[s], and how does the task require students to demonstrate this element in use?)

ESS1.A: The Universe and Its Stars / PS4.B: Electromagnetic Radiation: Students analyze light spectra from distant galaxies to understand redshift and use data from atomic composition (Hydrogen/Helium ratio) to confirm predictions of the early universe’s composition.

iii. The task requires students to integrate multiple dimensions in service of sense-making and/or problem-solving.

Consider in what ways the task requires students to use multiple dimensions together.

The task culminates in Part 4, where students must use their constructed explanation (SEP) to synthesize the various lines of evidence from the universe’s past (DCI) while relying on principles like the behavior of radiation energy as it stretches across expanding space (CCC).

iv. The task requires students to make their thinking visible.

Consider in what ways the task explicitly prompts students to make their thinking visible (surfaces current understanding, abilities, gaps, problematic ideas).

Students make their thinking visible by answering explicit open-ended synthesis questions in Parts 1-3, and by compiling a final written explanation in Part 4 that has specific requirements for what must be articulated (e.g., stating the core premise, describing redshift, explaining early composition, etc.).

Evidence of quality for Criterion B: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion B:

Ensure students understand the grading criteria for their final explanation in Part 4 so they fully articulate their reasoning.

Criterion C. Tasks are fair and equitable.

i. The task provides ways for students to make connections of local, global, or universal relevance.

Consider specific features of the task that enable students to make local, global, or universal connections to the phenomenon/problem and task at hand. Note: This criterion emphasizes ways for students to find meaning in the task; this does not mean “interest.” Consider whether the task is a meaningful, valuable endeavor that has real-world relevance–that some stakeholder group locally, globally, or universally would be invested in.

The task explores the fundamental origins of the universe, allowing students to connect their existence to the very first moments of time and space.

ii. The task includes multiple modes for students to respond to the task.

Describe what modes (written, oral, video, simulation, direct observation, peer discussion, etc.) are expected/possible.

The primary modes are interactive simulation manipulation, data collection/observation, and written response. It could easily be adapted for peer discussion during the synthesis phases.

iii. The task is accessible, appropriate, and cognitively demanding for all learners (including English learners or students working below/above grade level).

Features Yes Somewhat No Rationale
Task includes appropriate scaffolds [x] [ ] [ ] The task is chunked into logical parts: Part 1 for Redshift, Part 2 for Composition, Part 3 for CMB. Then a final synthesis.
Tasks are coherent from a student perspective [x] [ ] [ ] The narrative progression aligns with the layout of the simulation and scientific discovery.
Tasks respect and advantage students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds [x] [ ] [ ] The content is universal and uses standard scientific terminology without relying on specific cultural idioms.
Tasks provide both low- and high-achieving students with an opportunity to show what they know [x] [ ] [ ] Data collection provides an accessible entry point, while the final synthesis provides a high ceiling for deep reasoning.
Tasks use accessible language [x] [ ] [ ] Sentences are concise and vocabulary is focused on the necessary scientific terms.

iv. The task cultivates students’ interest in and confidence with science and engineering.

Consider how the task cultivates students interest in and confidence with science and engineering, including opportunities for students to reflect their own ideas as a meaningful part of the task; make decisions about how to approach a task; engage in peer/self-reflection; and engage with tasks that matter to students.

By allowing students to use a high-quality simulation that models the data gathering process of astronomers (like clicking on galaxies to get spectra), it demystifies how scientists know what they know about the Big Bang.

v. The task focuses on performances for which students’ learning experiences have prepared them (opportunity to learn considerations).

Consider the ways in which provided information about students’ prior learning (e.g., instructional materials, storylines, assumed instructional experiences) enables or prevents students’ engagement with the task and educator interpretation of student responses.

The task is self-contained enough that students can learn directly from the simulation, but it assumes they have been introduced to concepts like atoms (hydrogen/helium) and the basic idea of the electromagnetic spectrum.

vi. The task presents information that is scientifically accurate.

Describe evidence of scientific inaccuracies explicitly or implicitly promoted by the task.

No inaccuracies. It aligns with the current scientific consensus regarding Big Bang nucleosynthesis, Hubble’s law, and the CMB.

Evidence of quality for Criterion C: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [x] Adequate [ ] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion C:

Teachers could consider allowing students to present their final explanations as an oral presentation or visual model instead of a written paragraph to increase response mode equity.

Criterion D. Tasks support their intended targets and purpose.

Before you begin:

  1. Describe what is being assessed. Include any targets provided, such as dimensions, elements, or PEs:

HS-ESS1-2: Construct an explanation of the Big Bang theory based on astronomical evidence of light spectra, motion of distant galaxies, and composition of matter in the universe.

  1. What is the purpose of the assessment? (check all that apply)
    • Formative (including peer and self-reflection)
    • Summative
    • Determining whether students learned what they just experienced
    • Determining whether students can apply what they have learned to a similar but new context
    • Determining whether students can generalize their learning to a different context
    • Other (please specify):

i. The task assesses what it is intended to assess and supports the purpose for which it is intended.

Consider the following:

  1. Is the assessment target necessary to successfully complete the task?

Yes, the task is a direct reflection of the PE. Students cannot complete the task without analyzing the three required pieces of evidence and constructing the explanation.

  1. Are any ideas, practices, or experiences not targeted by the assessment necessary to respond to the task? Consider the impact this has on students’ ability to complete the task and interpretation of student responses.

General literacy and the ability to operate an interactive web page are required, but these do not present an undue burden.

  1. Do the student responses elicited support the purpose of the task (e.g., if a task is intended to help teachers determine if students understand the distinction between cause and correlation, does the task support this inference)?

Yes, a well-written response to Part 4 will clearly indicate whether a student understands the Big Bang Theory and the evidence that supports it.

ii. The task elicits artifacts from students as direct, observable evidence of how well students can use the targeted dimensions together to make sense of phenomena and design solutions to problems.

Consider what student artifacts are produced and how these provide students the opportunity to make visible their 1) sense-making processes, 2) thinking across all three dimensions, and 3) ability to use multiple dimensions together [note: these artifacts should connect back to the evidence described for Criterion B].

The written answers to Parts 1-3 provide evidence of DCI and CCC comprehension. The final explanation in Part 4 is the direct artifact demonstrating the SEP of Constructing Explanations.

iii. Supporting materials include clear answer keys, rubrics, and/or scoring guidelines that are connected to the three-dimensional target. They provide the necessary and sufficient guidance for interpreting student responses relative to the purpose of the assessment, all targeted dimensions, and the three-dimensional target.

Consider how well the materials support teachers and students in making sense of student responses and planning for follow up (grading, instructional moves), consistent with the purpose of and targets for the assessment. Consider in what ways rubrics include:

  1. Guidance for interpreting student thinking using an integrated approach, considering all three dimensions together as well as calling out specific supports for individual dimensions, if appropriate:

Part 4 of the task explicitly lists five bullet points detailing exactly what the final explanation must include, serving as a student-facing rubric.

  1. Support for interpreting a range of student responses, including those that might reflect partial scientific understanding or mask/misrepresent students’ actual science understanding (e.g., because of language barriers, lack of prompting or disconnect between the intent and student interpretation of the task, variety in communication approaches):

The chunking of the task into parts allows teachers to identify exactly where a student’s understanding breaks down (e.g., they understand Redshift, but are confused by CMB).

  1. Ways to connect student responses to prior experiences and future planned instruction by teachers and participation by students:

Understanding the Big Bang allows for transitions into stellar nucleosynthesis (how heavier elements are made) and planetary formation.

iv. The task’s prompts and directions provide sufficient guidance for the teacher to administer it effectively and for the students to complete it successfully while maintaining high levels of students’ analytical thinking as appropriate.

Consider any confusing prompts or directions, and evidence for too much or too little scaffolding/supports for students (relative to the target of the assessment—e.g., a task is intended to elicit student understanding of a DCI, but their response is so heavily scripted that it prevents students from actually showing their ability to apply the DCI).

The directions for the simulation are clear (e.g., “Set the ‘Time (Expansion)’ slider…”). The synthesis prompts are open enough to require original thought rather than just copying text from the screen.

Evidence of quality for Criterion D: [ ] No [ ] Inadequate [ ] Adequate [x] Extensive

Suggestions for improvement of the task for Criterion D:

Ensure educators use the bulleted list in Part 4 as a formal rubric for grading.

Overall Summary

Consider the task purpose and the evidence you gathered for each criterion. Carefully consider the purpose and intended use of the task, your evidence, reasoning, and ratings to make a summary recommendation about using this task. While general guidance is provided below, it is important to remember that the intended use of the task plays a big role in determining whether the task is worth students’ and teachers’ time.

The Big Bang Evidence Explorer Task is a high-quality, 3D NGSS task. It leverages a rich, interactive simulation that directly addresses the three core pillars of evidence required by HS-ESS1-2. The scaffolding leads students through individual data collection and analysis before culminating in a rigorous explanation-building exercise. It is highly recommended for use.

Final recommendation (choose one):